Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: charred who wrote (2994)	7/10/1999 12:29:00 PM
From: Elizabeth Andrews	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4504

Check back on the thread. Everyone has contributed comments on most of the risks with respect to this project, including the town issue.

To: charred who wrote (2994)	7/10/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

<<The deposit looks great however has there been any discussion about the town. This could kill the project in my opinion. Moving 10,000 people is not easy. >> You are right Charred.. It is a problem. But not one that can't be overcome. The costs of moving the town is anywhere between $25-$50 millions and will certainly impact on the economics of the project. But the recent announcement of a gold cap with 1M ounces gold on top of TG-1 will help. Beside, the local community is favorable to mining and needs better housing. There are possibly some pocket of resistance, but there is still 3 years ahead to try to reach an agreement. The new discovery at TG-3 may possibly make of this issue a non-issue. TG-3 could be a lot bigger than TG-1. Time will tell. But if it is, the $25-$50 millions need to move the town will be a small expense in a much bigger project. Then there is TG-7....and... etc. In the end, we might end up with much more than a VMS deposit. We are thinking here of a new mining camp. If this materialize, the town will be a non-issue. That is what is exciting about this deal... but again, you know as much as I do that potential can vanished very rapidly. So for now, we can't call it a sure thing... but we may be very close to. CC

To: charred who wrote (2994)	7/10/1999 3:54:00 PM
From: James N. Wilson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4504

<Moving 10,000 people is not easy > Charred - of course not, have you downloaded and viewed Manhattan's slide presentation available at the company's website? If so, I think most could agree that the town of Tambo Grande is not exactly like a stroll down Park Avenue, to say the least. Since a portion of the town resides over TG1 it might be safe to speculate that when BRGM drilled the project in 1979/80 they did not map out drill targets under houses or between buildings. It would seem very likely that many, if not most of the population at Tambo Grande moved to the project for economic reasons. That being the hope of a job and better way of life for their family. This should be no surprise given the extreme poverty conditions in third world countries where for many as little as 1 US buck per day might be considered a living wage. If, the project is developed this would have quite a positive $$ impact for the town of Tambo Grande, Manhattan's 1/4 owner of the project and Manhattan shareholders. I could be wrong, but think the only real issue of concern is the economics of the project and the Manhattan exploration team is working hard to resolve this matter. james